According to some online news reports about Homo naledi, eg the Channel 4 News one, the species is NOT thought to be a direct ancestor of current-day humans (I could not readily verify that from the full paper here: http://elifesciences.org/content/4/e09560.full)

I see that one YEC response so far is sheer blatant denial, basically suggesting or implying that this cannot be a human ancestor so therefore evolution must be false as well:http://www.icr.org/article/8962In the main text they suggest this creature "was likely just another human variety" but then in an update they say "upon closer examination, the skeletal remains given the name Homo naledi show a host of primate characteristics" (the brain only the size of a gorilla brain appears to be one). Further proof that young earth creationism is science denial NOT science.

But it's not an ape, creationists! It's some funny kind of human, the like of which does not appear to be still around today. So if Sherwin is to be believed within the YEC online community, the Creation Museum should not be placing it alongside their (fraudulent) 'Lucy' the alleged 'extinct gorilla'.

PS My previous computer suddenly shuffled off its mortal coil on 11 September. I have only just got back online. So what may appear to have been my 'respectful silence' here has mostly been enforced 'silence' accompanied behind the scenes by disrespectful cursing - and finding other ways to occupy myself when indoors...

And the other liars at 'Answers' 'in' Genesis are proclaiming that it's an ape! Hilarious.https://answersingenesis.org/human-evol ... -ancestor/Only skimmed but the key sentences appear to be "After assessing the published reports, we beg to differ with Berger’s assessment of Homo naledi. We do not believe Homo naledi deserves its Homo designation".

Meanwhile the promised article from the liars at CMI, which they said on their facebook page last week in response to a supporter query was in then in preparation, has apparently NOT been forthcoming. Should they agree with AiG lies? Or ICR lies? Or agree with the scientists (perish the thought)? Or bury their heads in the sand and hope it will all 'go away' until Jesus returns or they all die?

PS at 16.28 pm - there's also a stupid Ham blog dated 14 Sept* which deliberately MISSES the point by attacking the scientists concerned (and having a go at the blogger Naturalis Historia). I have just submitted the following for approval at Naturalis Historia http://thenaturalhistorian.com/2015/09/ ... ssil-find/"I’ve been offline for five days so have only just had the chance to catch up with the latest YEC lying caused by REALITY not matching scripture (not even had time to read this blog yet). HOWEVER:viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3703PS Joel is incurring the wrath of Ken Ham, who is calling him an ‘evolutionist’ but failing to mention that he is a Christian as well: https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... fy-fossil/Scientific disagreements show that science is challenging. These YEC disagreements virtually PROVE apemen (which are in accordance with the theory of human evolution). If one YEC says “it’s human” and another says “it’s not human but ape” you can be pretty sure it’s TRANSITIONAL (and older than the Bible)."

From the 'Description' section of the elifesciences paper: "The morphology of the cranium, mandible, and dentition is mostly consistent with the genus Homo, but the brain size of H. naledi is within the range of Australopithecus."

From the Elizabeth Mitchell denialist response of 12 Sept: "Answers in Genesis biologist Dr. David Menton, the scientist responsible for the Creation Museum’s Lucy exhibit, after reviewing Berger’s study, agrees that evidence presented in the study does not support a Homo designation: "I am not convinced that H. naledi is human, and I don’t recognize the status of “near human.” From what I can see from the fossils and skull reconstruction, H. naledi had a sloped lower face and a very robust mandible that bears little resemblance to humans. It also has a small cranium...".

This is what AiG attempt to foist on Christendom as 'Answers in Depth'. It's a sham science-wise and reality-wise. Though presumably not 'unbiblical' - which is all that matters to Christian Bible zealots.

In fact there are TWO faces of Answers in Genesis (admittedly not always the same individual responding):

If it's Homo naledi the CORRECT way to respond is to say "it's clearly not a member of today's human race therefore it's an extinct ape" (likewise with Australopithecus afarensis).

"https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... fy-fossil/How come Homo naledi is not even an 'archaic human', Answers in Genesis? Like you have agreed that neanderthalensis and erectus 'must' have been? And exactly how is a biblical 'archaic human' - whatever that is - also "a fully human individual"? And how come - according to you, nobody else - fully human individuals comprise both 'modern' and 'archaic' humans (but that is also 'biblical' - and yet they are also all the same human race as created in Genesis and therefore evolution [and] transitional forms are both 'disproven')?I will record Ken Ham's Answer here. viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3703If he makes an Answer that is."

AiG are TWO-faced. One face is human, the other rather ape-like and with a small brain.

New attempted comments which HE might read before routinely zapping them:"You refer to cranial capacities. The ‘description’ section of the elifesciences paper states: “The morphology of the cranium, mandible, and dentition is mostly consistent with the genus Homo, but the brain size of H. naledi is within the range of Australopithecus.”As mentioned here: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3703"

"In my opinion, the reason is simple. No one wants to find a chimpanzee or gorilla ancestor. However, everyone wants to find a human ancestor!”Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that with the features that have been observed and studied Homo naledi could somehow be an ancestor of today’s gorillas or chimpanzees rather than humans?Or are you seeking to spread propaganda? Are lineages only possible for great apes but NOT for human beings since the latter is presumably ‘unbiblical’?"

Meanwhile, here is a NEW slightly belated YEC blog on this find: http://crev.info/2015/09/evaluating-homo-naledi/Due to persistent and unexplained technical difficulties in logging on in order to submit comments at this website - where I have been routinely censored in the past for a spurious reason - I set out below in quotes the comment I WOULD submit under the blog if I COULD: "I am puzzled as to why your blog fails to give a full picture of young earth creationist comments - and apparent confusion over exactly how to react - in response to this widely-reported find. You FAIL to mention that the ICR early response by Sherwin stated (before he added an 'update'): "The 15 partial skeletons were found buried in a difficult-to-access South African cave. Their human feet and skulls, plus ritualistic burial, show that Homo naledi—if this name stands the test of time—was likely just another human variety." And you FAIL to mention ANY of the responses by Answers in Genesis where they suggest - arbitrarily in my view - that these bones belonged to "mostly likely an ape" (and not anything in the genus Homo ie flatly contradicting the initial suggestion by the ICR): https://answersingenesis.org/human-evol ... -ancestor/"

I also note that Coppedge/CREV has also traced a FORTHCOMING CMI article on this find (one that I did not see when viewing their website a short while ago): http://creation.com/homo-naledi

I am submitting the following comment - to their UK office - for their censor to routinely zap:"I note that in your belated first response you state that you remain uncommitted "as to whether the remains are human or ape" ie you fail to agree with either Answers in Genesis or the Institute for Creation Research. Though it would appear that you are on the verge of DISPUTING the AiG claim that these bones belong to an extinct 'ape' and FALSELY proclaiming that they belong in fact to "mankind" and as such "descendants of the historical Adam and Eve". Where does the Bible refer to humans with such small, gorilla-sized, brains? You also blithely proclaim "What they are not, though, is some kind of missing link between ape-like ancestors and man". How so? I can also promise you that carbon dating of the bones would NOT show them to be less than 6,000 years old!"

BOTTOM LINE: AIG SAY 'APE' BONES. CMI APPEAR LIKELY TO PROCLAIM THEM NOT ONLY IN THE GENUS HOMO BUT ALSO OUR SPECIES HOMO SAPIENS. WHAT FUN 'CREATION SCIENCE' IS."

PS Old Earth creationists also appear somewhat confused by these bones (as indeed do intelligent design proponents - not to mention the scientists directly involved as well).

[Although nobody else appears to wish to discuss this topic any further here, I am now posting here the text of an email I sent on 21 Sept - because I am having technical trouble adding it HERE in response to a visiting young earth creationist: http://thenaturalhistorian.com/2015/09/ ... i-fossils/]

February 2014: Ken Ham reveals that nothing, such as evidence, would be likely to change his mind about origins - because he has a 'book' (the Bible).

Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis react to the news:https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... fy-fossil/"Creation scientists, studying descriptions that typically say how each bone differs from the corresponding bone in an extinct ape and a modern or archaic human, try to see past author biases to the actual data. We have to determine, as much as we can, whether the data is more consistent with fully human or fully non-human individuals. Bible-believers know there can be no in-betweens".https://answersingenesis.org/human-evol ... -ancestor/"We beg to differ with Berger’s assessment of Homo naledi. We do not believe Homo naledi deserves its Homo designation.Despite all the media articles and Berger’s implication that Homo naledi is a glorious mosaic of incipient humanity superimposed on an australopithecine base, the data presented in the study reveals what is most likely an ape."

So Ken Ham's young earth creationist 'worldview' has forced him and his organisation, in responding to reality and trying to keep that reality 'biblical', to REWRITE or CHERRY PICK the relevant facts in order keep their model of origins supposedly 'viable'. For instance the elifesciences paper stated: "The morphology of the cranium, mandible, and dentition is mostly consistent with the genus Homo, but the brain size of H. naledi is within the range of Australopithecus."

Yet in their article of 12 September AiG stated: "Answers in Genesis biologist Dr. David Menton, the scientist responsible for the Creation Museum’s Lucy exhibit, after reviewing Berger’s study, agrees that evidence presented in the study does not support a Homo designation: "I am not convinced that H. naledi is human, and I don’t recognize the status of “near human.” From what I can see from the fossils and skull reconstruction, H. naledi had a sloped lower face and a very robust mandible that bears little resemblance to humans. It also has a small cranium..."

But shock horror, OTHER online young earth creationists have adopted a totally different strategy in order to try and achieve the SAME end of keeping observable and historical reality 'biblical' (thus unintentionally highlighting the scientific bankruptcy of their ideas ie what counts is the conclusion and NOT the evidence). http://www.icr.org/article/8962"Their human feet and skulls, plus ritualistic burial, show that Homo naledi - if this name stands the test of time - was likely just another human variety". http://creation.com/homo-naledi"Why label the remains Homo naledi if there is so much indication that these may have been ordinary humans with some unique anatomical variations just as there are variations today between different people groups". (This is their provisional rather than final response.)

Basically these rather arrogant ICR and CMI responses are accusing the scientists who have studied the remains of being so stupid and/or blinded by bias that they cannot recognise the bones of long-dead human beings. (The SAME bones that AiG are telling us must belong to some kind of extinct 'ape').

Meanwhile another YEC, Dr Jay Wile, is basically accusing the scientists of incompetence:http://blog.drwile.com/?p=13775"it's not clear that the fossils all come from the same species." (though he broadly goes with the 'these must be apes' conjecture)

Does he seriously think that the scientists would not have noticed if there was some visible variation in particular bones or structures that are duplicated within this find of around 15 deceased individuals - particular bones that have been preserved in two or more different individuals?

I suggest that these young earth creationist responses, collectively, reveal sheer desperation and denial. More here:viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3703

But is Homo naledi fatal to young earth creationism and also old earth creationism as being a viable model of origins (even though some will still believe in it which is their right even if they do not have the right to declare evolution a 'lie' or evolutionary scientists 'liars')? Perhaps not. After all, you cannot kill something that is already dead.

And the young earth creationists have successfully provided 'Answers'! It is still clear - according to them - that 'science confirms the Bible'.

Answers in Genesis' and Ken Ham's science 'confirms' it! Or - if you prefer - the very different science of the ICR and CMI 'confirms' it. Or perhaps the suggestion of Wile that surely there must actually be 'more' than one species that has actually been retrieved from that South African cave ie 'no' species ever had both human and ape features.

A young earth creationist doing what they do best. Lying ad nauseum (from the fifth para onwards - I counted eight huge lies).http://www.icr.org/article/8992

PS At 11.20 pm.It's not just me who finds wilful serial lying by professing Christians rather disgustingly hypocritical:http://thenaturalhistorian.com/2015/10/ ... ment-68842But needs must and all that. If you are determined that ALL reality is either 'biblical' or 'not unbiblical' then DESPERATE times call for DESPERATE lying oh 'Institute for Creation Research'.

http://creation.com/puzzling-homo-nalediOdd that the great chess playing genius Jonathan Sarfati appears to be keeping silent, on the CMI website at least, about Homo naledi. But we HAVE got a new detailed indeed very detailed commentary from Peter Line.So does he agree with the kneejerk early responses by Answers in Genesis that this must be an extinct 'ape' species? NO. Or with the first response by the ICR that the bones appear to be OUR species? Not really. Or with the LATER responses by the ICR that the bones must be an 'imaginary creature' derived by having somehow mixed up the bones of two DIFFERENT species (one 'human' and one 'ape')? NO. Does he allege some kind of hoax or fraud? Not really. I have not studied the article in huge depth (I closely read the first two sections and - most of - the final section but skipped the material in between) but he is trying to push - though not very hard - a hypothesis that these were diseased members of Homo erectus - and, would you believe it, Line considers Homo erectus bones so far discovered and named as such to be "mostly humans" (gosh has he just refuted evolution and proven the historical literal reliability of the book of Genesis). (If these individuals weren't allegedly pathologically ill and deformed they would have resembled us much more - apparently.)I rather dismiss the quote at footnote 113. Because the scientist who made the comment is an intelligent design proponent who works for the Biologic Institute which is funded by the Discovery Institute (though it sounds from her comment that she is admitting the possibility of crawling ape to upright bipedally walking human theistic evolution). The next part of the concluding section is aggressive YEC pseudo-scientific preaching to the (already) closed-minded to the possibility of human evolution.Oh and Line has coined a new term from the YEC 'creation science' lobby. 'Robust humans'. You learn so much reading YEC website articles. Reading them critically."Can Homo naledi be human? As discussed earlier, most of the features that are said to be ‘primitive’ in Homo naledi are still within human variation, whether it be modern humans or robust humans (e.g., Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis and Neandertals). If Homo naledi is human, the features most difficult to explain are the small cranial capacity and the curved fingers of the hand. With regards to the curved finger and toe bones, a comparison of Homo naledi with Homo erectus is difficult because there is not enough fossil material of the latter to allow for comparisons of the phalanges. The finger curvature of Homo naledi certainly appears outside the range of non-pathological modern humans, but how do we know that Homo naledi individuals did not suffer from some pathology? As discussed earlier, if the human-like hand of Homo naledi is from a human, then a possible explanation for the curved fingers is some sort of bone pathology, possibly vitamin D deficiency and/or old rickets, Another explanation, regarded as the more plausible by this author, is that it may be associated with cretinism, which is also a non-genetic condition causing bone pathology (see below discussion on Homo floresiensis).""If Homo naledi are just small-brained Homo erectus specimens, are they part of the normal variation of these robust humans? Given the number of Homo erectus specimens with small cranial capacities this phenomenon surely reflects something intrinsic about these humans. It is hard to escape the conclusion that the range of what could be considered normal brain size would have been lower in Homo erectus compared to modern humans. However, it should be remembered that other robust humans, such as the Neandertals, had generally quite large brains compared to the average modern human brain. One explanation why humans, such as Homo erectus and Neandertals, were more ‘robust’ or different in morphology to modern humans is that it could reflect changes in development of pre-Flood and early post-Flood individuals, linked to longevity, possibly involving thyroid hormone secretion patterns as the primary mechanism causing the change." Funny how some of these biblical 'robust humans' had smaller brains than us and others had larger brains (did Homo neanderthalensis manage to escape deformities such as cretinism). But I am sure that they key to this must be changes wrought by Noah's Flood. I do not feel qualified to comment on Line's comments regarding Homo floriensis, dwarfism, cretinism or the possibility that this could be a sort of grave where only cretinous members of the population got buried or worse that they were forced down into the cave whilst still alive and left to die.YECs are fond of saying that ancient 'archaic' or 'robust' humans were as intelligent as us. Though Line is accusing these ones of ghoulish practices of murder including by cannibalism of deformed and cretinous members of their species.But none of that quite matches the depravity of today's so-called islamic state - or the nazis or the north korean regime.Line's article is less dogmatic than material coming out from AiG and the ICR.

[I made minor changes to this after flagging it to two bloggers; the article is NOW final, at 1.38 am GMT.]

Can we assume, then, that these ancient "homo variants" were excluded from the ark by Noah as unnecessary or undesirable? Or did he employ them as crew then ethnically cleansed them at disembarkation? Or were they, shock horror, the culprits who were to blame for the fludde in the first place and so deserved to drown? Shurely we should be told.

Both posts refer to articles by Jean O'Micks who writes for the AiG website and also 'Answers Research Journal'. The posts refer to the following sequence of events; from my own investigation they have presented the sequence of events accurately.

Just to add that my next comments below were written BEFORE reading the whole of the Wood and MacMillan articles ie they are my original thoughts.

However, AiG have claimed all along on their website that Homo naledi was in fact some kind of 'ape' instead.

And by October 2016 O'Micks had decided, following completion of a postcranial analysis, that Homo naledi grouped 'away from the Homo genus'. He sought to suggest, though with tentative-sounding language, that it might be part of the Australopithecus genus instead.

On 28 December an article by Wood appeared on the AiG website, which disagreed with the O'Micks October article:https://answersingenesis.org/creation-s ... to-omicks/From the abstract (the only part that I have read): "excluding Homo naledi from the human holobaramin is unwarranted conclusion from O'Micks' results".

Also on 28 December ie simultaneously another article by O'Micks appeared - responding to the Wood article (again I've only read the abstract):https://answersingenesis.org/creation-s ... to-omicks/The abstract refers to morphological characteristics and also refers to 'small cranial volume'. It also seeks to make the somewhat unwarranted and bogus argument "another confounding factor in the study of H. naledi which must be addressed is that the 1,550 bones ... might come from mixed species". The original paper in elifesciences stated:"Aside from these limited faunal materials, the Dinaledi collection is entirely composed of hominin skeletal and dental remains. The collection so far comprises 1550 fossil hominin specimens, this number includes 1413 bone specimens and 137 isolated dental specimens; an additional 53 teeth are present in mandibular or maxillary bone specimens...all morphologically informative bone specimens are clearly hominin. In all cases where elements are repeated in the sample, they are morphologically homogeneous, with variation consistent with body size and sex differences within a single population. These remains represent a minimum of 15 hominin individuals, as indicated by the repetition and presence of deciduous and adult dental elements.

The geological age of the fossils is not yet known. Excavations have thus far recovered hominin material from Unit 2 and Unit 3 in the chamber (Dirks et al., 2015). Surface-collected hominin material from the present top of Unit 3, which includes material derived from both Unit 2 and Unit 3, represents a minority of the assemblage, and is morphologically indistinguishable from material excavated from in situ within Unit 3. In addition to general morphological homogeneity including cranial shape, distinctive morphological configurations of all the recovered first metacarpals, femora, molars, lower premolars and lower canines, are identical in both surface-collected and excavated specimens (see Figure 14 later in the text). These include traits not found in any other hominin species yet described. These considerations strongly indicate that this material represents a single species, and not a commingled assemblage."

But AiG - worried about yet more evidence for evolution - still want their followers to conclude that it is "not such a clear-cut case" to put H. naledi into the Homo baramin ie it was probably just some sort of ape (and Lee Berger and co must be idiots blinded by their preconceptions).

Finally to those Wood and MacMillan articles, now read in full. Wood writes:"So I wrote a response to O'Micks [that dated 28 December], which was published on Wednesday in ARJ. It basically says what I just said, but in more technical jargon (if you can imagine such a thing). O'Micks responded to my response, in which he repeats a few discredited claims about H. naledi. I've addressed some already (these are not the remains of two different species; the bones were not washed into the cave)."

MacMillan writes:"Wood submitted an article to the Answers Research Journal pointing out that O’Micks reached this conclusion by excluding inconvenient data.

While I obviously disagree with Wood’s views on origins and the age of the Earth, this paper was nonetheless an excellent example of using sound research principles to identify poor scholarship. What’s most interesting, though, is how AiG responded.

AiG accepted Wood’s submission to ARJ, but only after O’Micks had an opportunity to write a rebuttal. Then, they posted the rebuttal on their website first, ahead of Wood’s article, as shown by this screengrab [or could they have appeared simultaneously but transposed so that people might read O'Micks first not Wood first]:

Now, I only have minimal experience publishing in scientific journals, but this is highly irregular. A reputable journal would either allow a letter to the editor in a later issue, or they would require a rebuttal to be submitted as a full peer-reviewed research project in a later issue. Posting a concurrent rebuttal demonstrates that ARJ’s claims of academic integrity and peer review are pure nonsense.

The rebuttal is obviously rushed and hacked-together, and repeats a litany of long-debunked claims about H. naledi: that the burial site might be a fossil graveyard flood deposit, that the bones might be a mixture of australopith and human remains, and that the location of the remains would have been too remote to be accessed for intentional burial. These have been roundly disproven. The cave itself is carved out of sedimentary rock, meaning it would have had to form after the creationist Flood; the bones were disarticulated in place, meaning they are neither a mixture of different species nor a water-borne deposit, and the cavern’s challenging accessibility is the result of additional sedimentation since the burial of these remains.

What was O’Micks response to Wood pointing out problems with his analysis? He simply argued that identifying the (nonexistent) break between humans and apes is a “holistic” undertaking and that he should be free to weight his analysis based on his intuition of what traits are more important. This, of course, is just special pleading."

Finally a quote of the week: "Creationism isn’t about science; it’s about control".